## Facts

- Husband and wife divorced after a marriage of more than three decades; both were in their late fifties at dissolution.
- Husband practiced as a neurosurgeon and retired in 1999 due to a medical disability.
- Wife worked earlier in the marriage and held part-time jobs, but primarily managed the household, cared for the children, and managed family finances.
- Husband obtained a disability-insurance policy during the marriage; premiums were paid with family funds.
- After retiring, husband received disability payments; by the divorce he had received about $189,000 and expected about $6,500 per month until age sixty-five.
- The parties mediated and wife moved to enforce an alleged settlement; after an evidentiary hearing, the court denied enforcement for lack of mutual assent.
- The same judge held a bench trial and entered a divorce decree aiming for an even division and similar post-divorce economic circumstances.
- The decree awarded wife one-half of the ongoing monthly disability benefits and $75,000 for past disability benefits, along with other property allocations.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by including husband’s disability-insurance benefits (past and future) in the marital estate and awarding wife one-half of the monthly benefits plus $75,000 for past benefits.
2. Whether reversible error occurred when the trial judge, after hearing and denying the motion to enforce an alleged mediation settlement, later presided over the divorce bench trial.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by treating the disability-insurance benefits as part of the marital estate and distributing both past and future payments to achieve an equitable division.
- The court held there was no reversible error in the judge presiding at trial after the settlement-enforcement hearing, particularly absent a timely motion to disqualify or contemporaneous objection.

## Legal Principles

- In Wyoming divorce proceedings, property division is reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate courts defer to the trial court’s equitable balancing and factual determinations absent clear error.
- Disability-insurance benefits acquired and funded during marriage may be treated as marital property or as an economic resource for equitable distribution, especially where benefits replace marital earning capacity.
- A long-term marriage and the spouses’ respective economic and non-economic contributions may justify distribution intended to leave both parties in similar post-divorce economic circumstances.
- A judge’s exposure to evidence during a pretrial settlement-enforcement dispute does not automatically require disqualification from the subsequent trial; failure to timely seek disqualification or object can forfeit the claim.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an equitable property division that included disability-insurance payments purchased with marital funds and used to equalize post-divorce economic circumstances, and it rejected a challenge to the trial judge’s continued participation where no timely disqualification request was made.


Metz v. Metz, 61 P.3d 383 (Wyo. 2003)